originally posted by: Gryphon66
OP clearly states a recent circumstance by which death threats generated by dishonest coverage from the "right wing' media has effectively silenced
Dr. Ciccariello-Maher at Drexel University.

Can any of you dispute that? If not, the OP's point stands.

I see you're attempt at silly intellectual pablumatic sewer cloggers....

It's either dishonest reporting or it isn't. When the accusation is that dishonest reporting generated death threats, you might at least attempt to
show how it is dishonest. If you are unable to show how, it is a baseless accusation built on a lie. If the reporting is accurate, it is his own
comments, and not the "right-wing news", who generated the subsequent outrage.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Agree or not with the title, but to sit there and say the liberal left is only assaulting free speech is a lie to its core.

That's no doubt true, but does it change the fact that when either side interferes with free speech it's wrong? Does it make the groups from the Left
who do things like block doors, heckle speakers and riot to stop speech any less guilty?

I don't buy into the look at what they do argument to justify the same from the other side approach that is taking IMO. They are also doing a dance
around what they said in much the same was an errant teenager would do. But, but other people do it..............

It's a tantrum to be honest. They said provocative things and got a predictable response and now are using the predictable response to defend
themselves. No way did this person not know what the response would be.

I didn't "accuse others" of anything. I made a statement of opinion; you have made a statement of opinion.

Unless you have some other evidence about something germane to the OP's topic ... you have nothing.

Like I previously mentioned, we can compare the tweets to the article and see if it is "dishonest" or not. We can also scour the internet for any
evidence that the threats were "generated by dishonest coverage from the 'right wing' media", evidence which is suspiciously missing. But if you want
to relegate your conclusions to the domain of opinion, opinion which lacks evidence, you're free to it.

And as I said earlier (and this will be my last to you unless you have something more substantial than your opinion and your incessant quibbling to
offer) that you can feel free to bring your points of evidence (that is, if you are confused, evidence from the articles you claim to have read as
compared with the author's tweets.)

I offered that my evaluation of the articles in question is my opinion. You seem to be obsessively stuck there.

You have done nothing more than offer your opinion of my opinion and your opinion of said articles NONE of which is on topic here. I can understand
your need to segue to something else after the embarrassment you were handed by OP, but I'm not going to facilitate your side-stepping any further
without valid reasons.

I guess I failed to note the portion of OP's argument that stated that the fact that the "right wing" also tries to suppress free speech means that
supposed efforts from the left to do the same are justifiable.

I'm fine at leaving your baseless accusations as just that, opinion, but I have to wonder how you can rationally hold an opinion without first
discerning the facts of the matter? There is a fine line between opinion and dogma. It doesn't matter—if you're ever willing to back up your
baseless conclusions I'll be more than happy to argue otherwise, and maybe we can discern the truth together.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.